Nominations are being accepted for Apple's annual Apple Design Awards for outstanding software, as long as the software is available from the App Store or Mac App Store. But what about those that aren't in the Mac App Store?

Another move toward closing the system more tightly. This move, along with the "safety" provisions in Mountain Lion applies subtle pressure on developers to sell only through the App Store, thus closing the system more tightly while enhancing Apple's income. By OS10, you won't be able to buy a Mac App anywhere but the App Store and Apple will be able maintain the fiction of the Mac being an open system.

I'd be very much interested in your highlighting any apps worthy of the award that didn't make the cut because of the App Store requirement. I still avoid the App Store when I can, not so much due to well-thought-out principles but out of sheer ornery cussedness.

Another move toward closing the system more tightly. This move, along with the "safety" provisions in Mountain Lion applies subtle pressure on developers to sell only through the App Store, thus closing the system more tightly while enhancing Apple's income. By OS10, you won't be able to buy a Mac App anywhere but the App Store and Apple will be able maintain the fiction of the Mac being an open system.

Maybe. *shrug* The market will then react as it sees fit. Why worry about it? And this is from a Mac user. If Apple's actions make the platform of no use to me, I'll move on.

Another move toward closing the system more tightly. This move, along with the "safety" provisions in Mountain Lion applies subtle pressure on developers to sell only through the App Store, thus closing the system more tightly while enhancing Apple's income. By OS10, you won't be able to buy a Mac App anywhere but the App Store and Apple will be able maintain the fiction of the Mac being an open system.

Maybe. *shrug* The market will then react as it sees fit. Why worry about it? And this is from a Mac user. If Apple's actions make the platform of no use to me, I'll move on.

If only people would read your comment and stop there, instead of adding further FUD to this thread. I'm in the same boat as you. If it happens, it happens and I move away too. I'm confident Apple fully realizes exactly what is at stake here so all this fearmongering is a lot of emotion over a ton of assumptions that resolve to no conclusive facts.

It just makes me wonder why these FUD spreaders don't come to another conclusion: That the end goal is an OS with both the App Store and side-loaded apps. One side for Novices, one side for Pros. The same "evidence" used by FUDers can lead one to draw this alternative conclusion too, but I guess it's easier to rant and shed tears over worst-case scenarios and complain endlessly into the void.

The only real barriers to entry into Apple's ecosystem are programming ability and the fact that you need an actual business plan if you want to make any money from it. The so-called "walls" around their "garden" are all of three feet high. Getting an app past their approval process is not and has never been remotely difficult as long as you are a competent developer.

Another move toward closing the system more tightly. This move, along with the "safety" provisions in Mountain Lion applies subtle pressure on developers to sell only through the App Store, thus closing the system more tightly while enhancing Apple's income. By OS10, you won't be able to buy a Mac App anywhere but the App Store and Apple will be able maintain the fiction of the Mac being an open system.

Well, this move doesn't put pressure on developers to sell *only* through the App Store, it just provides an incentive (or 'pressure') for them to provide a version, non-exclusively, through the App Store.

The only real barriers to entry into Apple's ecosystem are programming ability and the fact that you need an actual business plan if you want to make any money from it.

I'm starting to teach myself Obj-C. I see square brackets in my sleep now. o.O No business plan. My intent is to make some apps for my own use.

My read is the same as Mr. who? above- it's a carrot to try and intice more developers to sell through the App store.

I would strongly recommend only using as much of that as absolutely necessary. Write wrapper functions and implement all the important stuff in C++. Objective C is a pathetic excuse for a programming language.

Now let’s see here, Mac apps from MS, Adobe, and 1000s of others which don’t pass through the Mac App Store (and pay the 30% greed tax) won’t be considered. And folks once called Microsoft a monopoly! Times change… Where's the Justice (dept)???

I would strongly recommend only using as much of that as absolutely necessary. Write wrapper functions and implement all the important stuff in C++. Objective C is a pathetic excuse for a programming language.

Are you serious? That's horrible advice.

Here's good advice: Obj-C is just fine. Use as much Obj-C as you can and don't waste your time writing wrapper functions.

Now let’s see here, Mac apps from MS, Adobe, and 1000s of others which don’t pass through the Mac App Store (and pay the 30% greed tax) won’t be considered. And folks once called Microsoft a monopoly! Times change… Where's the Justice (dept)???

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Apple, but the fact that they charge money for services that they have to spend money in order to provide is not one of them. The app store itself represents a tiny fraction of their profits and serves mainly as a selling point for iOS devices. All that infrastructure and support isn't built and maintained for free.

Bash Apple because xcode, itunes and gamecenter are all horrifically buggy and piss-poorly designed or because objective c sucks.

Another move toward closing the system more tightly. This move, along with the "safety" provisions in Mountain Lion applies subtle pressure on developers to sell only through the App Store, thus closing the system more tightly while enhancing Apple's income. By OS10, you won't be able to buy a Mac App anywhere but the App Store and Apple will be able maintain the fiction of the Mac being an open system.

Wah, wah, wah. What a whiner.

It's Apple's OS, it's Apple's conference, it's Apple award show. They can do whatever they want - if the market disagrees, they certainly can vote with their wallets.

The only real barriers to entry into Apple's ecosystem are programming ability and the fact that you need an actual business plan if you want to make any money from it. The so-called "walls" around their "garden" are all of three feet high. Getting an app past their approval process is not and has never been remotely difficult as long as you are a competent developer.

Right, and all apps should be fine with sandboxing and other restrictions imposed on app store apps.

It just makes me wonder why these FUD spreaders don't come to another conclusion: That the end goal is an OS with both the App Store and side-loaded apps. One side for Novices, one side for Pros. The same "evidence" used by FUDers can lead one to draw this alternative conclusion too, but I guess it's easier to rant and shed tears over worst-case scenarios and complain endlessly into the void.

Apple is steadily removing all the GPLv3 software from OS X, even if it means inconveniencing users. How do you explain that as evidence that they intend to keep the system open?

Now let’s see here, Mac apps from MS, Adobe, and 1000s of others which don’t pass through the Mac App Store (and pay the 30% greed tax) won’t be considered. And folks once called Microsoft a monopoly! Times change… Where's the Justice (dept)???

While I'm not a programmer/developer I'm pretty sure I'd jump on the 30% "greed tax" to have my App in the store as opposed to having to promote it myself. Of course you may not (or I may find it has no value) find it valuable and that's the beauty……. just don't put it on the App Store. Problem solved. Only thing Apple stated was they were only judging apps that are available on the App Store. You have to weigh whether being included in Design Awards is worth the 30% "greed tax."

It just makes me wonder why these FUD spreaders don't come to another conclusion: That the end goal is an OS with both the App Store and side-loaded apps. One side for Novices, one side for Pros. The same "evidence" used by FUDers can lead one to draw this alternative conclusion too, but I guess it's easier to rant and shed tears over worst-case scenarios and complain endlessly into the void.

Apple is steadily removing all the GPLv3 software from OS X, even if it means inconveniencing users. How do you explain that as evidence that they intend to keep the system open?

This conversation is not about the licensing restrictions of apps in the App Store. That's a separate matter, and one I personally disagree with. Is that what you're referring to?

Because now, like always, you can just download the GPLv3 licensed app from the author's website directly.

Anyone who thinks that 30% is a "greed tax", has little understanding of the dynamics of retail. It's a lot less than publishers take out of the price of a book. It's the cost of doing business, and it's not like Apple is even engaging in things like coop marketing or paid placement, like your local grocery store, the one that is typically charging you a 40-100% "greed tax" with the actual essentials for existence.

Now let’s see here, Mac apps from MS, Adobe, and 1000s of others which don’t pass through the Mac App Store (and pay the 30% greed tax) won’t be considered. And folks once called Microsoft a monopoly! Times change… Where's the Justice (dept)???

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Apple, but the fact that they charge money for services that they have to spend money in order to provide is not one of them. The app store itself represents a tiny fraction of their profits and serves mainly as a selling point for iOS devices. All that infrastructure and support isn't built and maintained for free.

I understand what you're saying. Apple 'claims' the 30% provides little profit. From the developers view, 30% could be the difference between profit and loss. I've never paid more than about 15% for electronic delivery.

On the mobile front, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. all collude to charge 30% overhead. I know, MS has promised to reduce the 30% to 20% after you've sold $25K (or some such). Plus, Apple pioneered the 99 cent or free apps/games. People seem 'concerned' about Apple hardware assembly in China & Brazil for <$2 /hour. Who thinks the average iOS Developer earns more?

And one more thing... With GateKeeper unless you pay the 30%, Apple will raise in the question in Mac users minds if your download is safe?

Now let’s see here, Mac apps from MS, Adobe, and 1000s of others which don’t pass through the Mac App Store (and pay the 30% greed tax) won’t be considered. And folks once called Microsoft a monopoly! Times change… Where's the Justice (dept)???

To everyone getting stressed out over this: put your conspiracy theories back in your bag. The rationale for this restriction is simple: inevitably Apple will feature the winners in its App Store like it always does. They can't exactly feature an app they can't offer. There, now calm down and go back to your life.

The only real barriers to entry into Apple's ecosystem are programming ability and the fact that you need an actual business plan if you want to make any money from it. The so-called "walls" around their "garden" are all of three feet high. Getting an app past their approval process is not and has never been remotely difficult as long as you are a competent developer.

Unless of course you are an open source developer or your application duplicates functionality built into the system. Plus the $99 fee just to publish your free app to one of the App Stores.

Another move toward closing the system more tightly. This move, along with the "safety" provisions in Mountain Lion applies subtle pressure on developers to sell only through the App Store, thus closing the system more tightly while enhancing Apple's income. By OS10, you won't be able to buy a Mac App anywhere but the App Store and Apple will be able maintain the fiction of the Mac being an open system.

Maybe. *shrug* The market will then react as it sees fit. Why worry about it? And this is from a Mac user. If Apple's actions make the platform of no use to me, I'll move on.

If only people would read your comment and stop there, instead of adding further FUD to this thread. I'm in the same boat as you. If it happens, it happens and I move away too. I'm confident Apple fully realizes exactly what is at stake here so all this fearmongering is a lot of emotion over a ton of assumptions that resolve to no conclusive facts.

It just makes me wonder why these FUD spreaders don't come to another conclusion: That the end goal is an OS with both the App Store and side-loaded apps. One side for Novices, one side for Pros. The same "evidence" used by FUDers can lead one to draw this alternative conclusion too, but I guess it's easier to rant and shed tears over worst-case scenarios and complain endlessly into the void.

More to the point, though they can use simple conditions to nudge devs in that direction, SCOTUS made it impossible for apple to ever bar outright 3rd party apps not approved by them. This was handled in IBM vs USA in the 70s. A PC is a "personal" device, owned wholy by the buyer, and no software vendor, through licence or otherwise, can restrict what is put on that machine after it is sold, PERIOD.

This of course does not apply to phones. Why is that? Well, contracry to poular belief, you don't own your cell phone.... The carrier and the FCC both withold rights to demand its surrender, with or without compensation, and in the interests of network security (a network managed and regulated by the government as well as the cariers), they can enforce what you can and can;t do (within certain limits).

Its plan as this: no matter even if apple DID want to control OS X to that level, (which they have repeatedly not only saidf the opposite of, but for which there is wide and GROWING 3rd party support), it would be illegal for them to do so. OS X will never be locked down, there will always be a clear and easy way to add whatever app you want. Apple can;t even void the warranty on the hardware if you do (as they can on cell phones, but ONLY if you alter the ROM).

The only real barriers to entry into Apple's ecosystem are programming ability and the fact that you need an actual business plan if you want to make any money from it. The so-called "walls" around their "garden" are all of three feet high. Getting an app past their approval process is not and has never been remotely difficult as long as you are a competent developer.

Unless of course you are an open source developer or your application duplicates functionality built into the system. Plus the $99 fee just to publish your free app to one of the App Stores.

The duplicate functionality rule only applies to iPhones, and a couple apps on the iPad, and even that has been cut back and limited over the years. You CAN have alternate browsers, alternate mail clients, even alternate dialers now. SO LONG as they priovide unique and worthy features above the capability of the native apps, and will not be readily mistaken for them.

I never said they don't make any profit from it (although that might be the case for the actual Mac portion of the app store. I'm not sure), only that it's a tiny fraction of their overall profits. Why spend time and money developing a new service if you aren't going to try to get people to use it?

I really can't fault a company for making money on a service they provide though, whatever their other motivations might be.

Now let’s see here, Mac apps from MS, Adobe, and 1000s of others which don’t pass through the Mac App Store (and pay the 30% greed tax) won’t be considered. And folks once called Microsoft a monopoly! Times change… Where's the Justice (dept)???

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Apple, but the fact that they charge money for services that they have to spend money in order to provide is not one of them. The app store itself represents a tiny fraction of their profits and serves mainly as a selling point for iOS devices. All that infrastructure and support isn't built and maintained for free.

I understand what you're saying. Apple 'claims' the 30% provides little profit. From the developers view, 30% could be the difference between profit and loss. I've never paid more than about 15% for electronic delivery.

On the mobile front, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. all collude to charge 30% overhead. I know, MS has promised to reduce the 30% to 20% after you've sold $25K (or some such). Plus, Apple pioneered the 99 cent or free apps/games. People seem 'concerned' about Apple hardware assembly in China & Brazil for <$2 /hour. Who thinks the average iOS Developer earns more?

And one more thing... With GateKeeper unless you pay the 30%, Apple will raise in the question in Mac users minds if your download is safe?

Mac-only user and fan for 20+ years. No more...

They :"collude" to charge 30%? You realize retail used to take 40-50%, right? You also realize that hosting an app on your own servers not only costs money in terms of storage and bandwdth, but it also requires money to process those credit card transactions, and more money to be cognizent of the 1,100 different taxation laws that apply, and paying those taxes accordingly requires manpower in accounting and legal departments. Depending on what state you reside in, not collecting sales tax could get you in a lot of trouble... Amazon complies with some states, and has negotiated deals with others while they await a universale flat tax for online transactions to be upheld through reciprocity umong the states.

30% is quite fair considdering the automatic attention, plus additional advertizing, apple does, the efforts to ensure your app is not simply copied by others in the same store, the infrastrcuture and delivery (and UPDATE) mechanics enherent to the system, as well as the transaction and tax processing, all for less overhead than you could have sold it at retal, not even including the cost of the box and shipping.

It only SOUNDS like a bad deal.

Keep in mind, half way to $10B in distributed comissions, hundreds of millions of downloads, and at 30%, apple has barely squeeked out any profit at all, with all their efficincy you could never have as a small developer self-hosting your apps in your own storefront.

I never said they don't make any profit from it (although that might be the case for the actual Mac portion of the app store. I'm not sure), only that it's a tiny fraction of their overall profits. Why spend time and money developing a new service if you aren't going to try to get people to use it?

I really can't fault a company for making money on a service they provide though, whatever their other motivations might be.

The storefront makes the device more appealing. The store may not profit, but everyone in retail has loss leaders to get people to come inside and buy OTHER things (like devices, accessories, Apple's OWN apps, and for many people after a while, Macs themselves.

Sears does appliance repair, you think that's profitable fort them? nope, but you buy a kenmore because of it instead of a Samsung from BestBuy that god-knows-who might come fix (or take away to fix elsewhere).

Now let’s see here, Mac apps from MS, Adobe, and 1000s of others which don’t pass through the Mac App Store (and pay the 30% greed tax) won’t be considered. And folks once called Microsoft a monopoly! Times change… Where's the Justice (dept)???

It's a friggin meaningless award. Your indignation is pointless.

I've been a Mac user for many years and I do think it's a totally meaningless award. Apple tends to reward "pretty" apps and not those that actually change one's life or business. To me this article is not about the award but an indication of Apple's overall attitude shift.

As for that guy's indignation over the 30% cut...come on. If you walked into any retail store in the country and asked them to sell your product, that store would keep 50%, the standard wholesale-to-retail markup. Apple's cut is less...you keep more.

A bit off topic, yes. But I think it's good people are considering this possibility.

I think the fear is basically that not many people would put it past Apple to do such a thing in locking the Mac OS to the Mac App Store as with the iDevices. Also, why wouldn't they? They're a business and it means more money, and that's really all of the excuse they need. They could then prevent people from ever getting the Pwnage Tool or Adobe Flash if they wanted to go that far. In the end, it's just more profits.

While I definitely choose such methods like with Steam, and do like the integration that MAS has for some users, but currently do everything in my power to not use MAS if I can rather go to the developers website. Even with the MAS being the only way to upgrade the iLife programs that come preinstalled on Macs, Apple has already made it that much more difficult for their base users having two separate places to upgrade the system software and then their applications. Then it requires a MAS account to do something as relatively simple as upgrade your preinstalled applications (which I've seen to be extremely confusing and unintuitive for older and not tech savvy users).

With that separation, I find it more telling that Apple will inevitably switch to a more unified method (but hey, that could be in 10 years). But if they do, which is still a big "if", that could very well be the last day I ever use a Mac for everyday use.

It just makes me wonder why these FUD spreaders don't come to another conclusion: That the end goal is an OS with both the App Store and side-loaded apps. One side for Novices, one side for Pros. The same "evidence" used by FUDers can lead one to draw this alternative conclusion too, but I guess it's easier to rant and shed tears over worst-case scenarios and complain endlessly into the void.

Apple is steadily removing all the GPLv3 software from OS X, even if it means inconveniencing users. How do you explain that as evidence that they intend to keep the system open?

That's due to the Tivoization clause. The same clause the is keeping Linus from upgrading and sticking with GPLv2. That clause is anti-business, so there is no surprise when business don't use software licensed with it.